Part two
ORIGIN OF TATARS

Page numbers, where shown, indicate pages in the
book publication. The offered translation of the printed edition contains typos
and misspellings, for which I apologize and intend to correct them with time.

I translate the Russian colloquial "Golden
Horde", used by the author, with the more appropriate "Kipchak Khanate",
with a full understanding that the author was limited in the choice of the
language he could use without jeopardizing his and his referents' existence
and the opportunity for publishing.

Introduction
Genral information about Tatars

192

62. Who were called and who are called Tatars?

Before starting a discourse about the problems of the Tatars' origin, it is necessary to understand what
are the Tatars we talk about. Frequently different peoples, at times ethnically not connected with each others,
were called Tatars. Many
historians and ethnologists in the 19th-20th centuries, following the Kazan
missionaries, designate with the ethnonym Tatar (without definitions) the peoples who
in the past were called Tatars by someone, for example, the ancient Tatars, and
the Mongolo-Tatars, and the Kipchak Khanate Tatars and the modern Bulgaro-Tatars,
all of them are just simply called Tatars. In the result these ethnically not connected or only partially
connected Tatars were group identified. We find this identification
in the monographs on the history of Tatars, and in the "Tatar" sections of the school
and high school textbooks written by some Russian, and sometimes by foreign authors.
It resulted in rude distortions in the study of the ethnogenesis for the
specific Tatars, and as a result also suffered the study of the origin of the Bulgaro-Tatars, the modern Tatar
nation formed in the Tatarstan and in Russia.

One of the main venues in the research of the leading Bulgaro-Tatar
historians even then was their fight against identifying the modern
Bulgaro-Tatars with the ancient Tatars, and
the Mongolo-Tatars, and the Kipchak Khanate Tatars.

In the middle of the 1990ies, strangely enough, among the Tatar historians
also appeared people who were identifying the modern Bulgaro-Tatars with the
Kipchak Khanate Tatars, with the Mongolo-Tatars,
or with the ancient Tatars. These so-called Tataro-Tatarists are as they
are
coming back from the concept of the Türko-Bulgarian origin of the modern Tatars to the
out-of-date missionary concept of Mongolo-Tatars, or Kipchak Khanate origin,
simultaneously addressing to the Russian historians with an ardent request to
value positively the Mongolo-Tatar conquest of the Rus principality, and also
the Chingizids oppressing the local population. In the result, the Tatarian Tataro-Tatarists
and some Russian historians unite all the Tatars in a single whole, and portray
the Bulgaro-Tatars as direct descendants of the Mongolo-Tatars, Kipchak Khanate
Tatars, even
"Tartars".

Taking into account all this, the semantics of the ethnonym Tatars needs to
be understoon from the beginning. Who were called and who are called now
"Tatars"?

1. In the scientific
research the ancient Tatars were called and are called now "Tatars". The
following groups of Tatars belong to them.

As the historical sources allow to judge, the ethnonym Tatars was a
self-name long before our era for a fairly advanced, well known then tribal
union or people
who were the northern neighbors and a contender of China. It is known that the Chinese
even then handled them with fear and hostility, calling them Ta-ta ("dirty",
"barbarians"). Chinese called with that name also their other northern neighbors. Even
their Great Chinese Wall they
started erecting for protection from the Tatars, i.e.
from all their northern close and far neighbors [Mitford Â., 1838, t. IV, 189].

Posting Note

Tatars are known as
Mongolian tribe originally living in the vicinity of the river Kerulen in the
territory of the modern Mongolia. In the 206 BC the Mongolian tribes (Ch. Dunhu 东胡) were
included in the Eastern Hun state, their Chinese name was Hi or Si (Chinese h/s alternation), Mongol tribes that escaped were eventually named after their mountain refuge places, Syanbi and Uhuan. Thus, the historical departure point are the Hi or Si tribes of the 3rd c. BC, self-name was Kai, i.e. Mong. "Snake", Turk. "Yilan, Djilan, Gilan", and "Uran". Apparently, the Kerulen Kais were intermarried with Huns/Uigurs, because for the next millennia they became a permanent refuge for the Tülrkic tribes during trouble times. In accordance with the dominant tribe nomenclature, Kais accepted Huns, Uigurs, and Onguts (Chuye Huns, Ch. Shato
沙陀), and unknown number of Türkic tribes in between. By the 8th c. AD they numbered 30
tribal subdivisions, most likely each subdivision representing a splinter of
originally individual tribe. The exogamy law would keep each tribe as a separate unit,
to trace the do's and dont's of the law. Except for a nearly complete wipe-out, of any
of which we do not know, this mostly Türkic conglomerate was very Türkic-friendly. By
the 7th c. AD they were already known as Tatars (Ch. Ta-ta, Da-da), and they
were members of all successor states after the eastern Huns. As allies of Seyanto in
their fight with Uiguro-Chinese assault in 648, they suffered along with Seyanto, and
a fraction of them evacuated to the Black Irtysh to start a Kimek Kaganate, in which
the Kai tribe was a dynastic tribe. At that time, the Tatars were split in two
fractions, one growing by further migration of the Tatar tribes in the Kimek Kaganate,
and the other remaining in place and known as Otuz Tatars "Thirty Tatars". The Kerulen
Tatars were members of the Second Türkic Kaganate, Uigur Kaganate, and Kirgiz
Kaganate. With the fall of the Kirgiz Kaganate ended the Türkic era and started a
Mongolian era. It is unlikely that there was much of linguistic, ethnical, or
demographical change in the period from 840 to 1200, so we can expect that
Chingiz-khan inherited the same composition that was left after the Kirgiz Kaganate.
In addition to the appellation "Tatar", "Kai", and "Otuz Tatars", we know "White
Tatar" appellation , "Black Tatar" appellation, and a few others, apparently
collective names applied to ethically distinct groups of tribes. The Onguts, for
example, belonged to White Tatars and consisted of three Chuye Hun tribes.

In the
11-12th cc., an advent of the Naiman and Merkit tribes forced westward drift of the
tribes belonging to the Kimek confederation. They became known in the Eastern Europe
as Kipchaks and Kumans. With the Kimek tribes first Tatar tribes became known and
recorded in Eastern Europe. Other Kimek Tatars occupied the "Deshti-Kipchak", the
steppes from Balkhash to Itil. That was how Chingiz-khan incorporated Tatars
into Mongol realm, the Eastern Tatars around Kerulen, in a hostile action, and the
Middle Asia Tatars in the Deshti-Kipchak as submitted tribes of the Kipchaks. The
Eastern European Tatars were included with the Eastern European Kipchaks in another
hostile action. With the first disintegration of the Mongol Empire, the Western Tatars
remained in the Juchi Ulus, and the Åastern Tatars remained in
the Mongol domain (home rule) in Mongolia.

The Rus fell into Mongol Empire in the
1240, and the Rus Slavs gave a moniker "Tatar" to the Mongol army, which consisted of
various Türkic tribes. That moniker became a common name for all Türkic tribes and any
other tribe associated with Türks. From the 16th c. to the 18th c., the Rus
princedoms, Russian Kingdom, and then Russian Empire led an unending war of conquest
against the "Tatar" states and people. Only in the 18th c., the Russian state learned
to discriminate among its new subjects, and to name separately non-Türkic ethnic
groups. The Türks captured previously, however, went under their initial moniker of
"Tatars", discriminated by the locative or political adjective: Kazan Tatars,
Astrakhan Tatars, Nogai Tatars, Uzbek Tatars, etc. In fact, very few of these people
were Tatars, every Türkic people had its own ethnonym, and it took centuries to
initiate people on using the Russian moniker. In the Middle Age, there were
individuals who would call themselves Tatars, for the prestige of the name, or in
communications with the Russian-speaking administrations and people, but that had
nothing to do with their native ethnonym of the whole people, the ethnonyms lived and
survived below the official nomenclature, censuses, and documentation.

Further, the ethnonym Otuz Tatars "Thirty Tatars" we meet in an inscription monument
in honour of Kül-Tegin (8th century AD),
the ethnonym Tokuz Tatars "Nine Tatars" we meet in the inscription "Moün-Chur Monument" (8th century AD). Were these
ethnonyms self-names (endoethnonyms) or the names of these tribes by the
others (exoethnonyms) is not known, but the ethnonym Tatars recorded in
the inscriptions tells that then in the Central Asia lived tribes called Tatars.

In the same 8th century the tribes under the name Tatars are recorded in
the Kimak state, which existed in the 8th-11th centuries in the Western Siberia
between the river Irtysh and the Ural mountains, in the Kazakhstan and Central Asia. This
state played a significant role in forming the Kazakh nation and the Siberian
Türks (Tatars) nation. The last then called themselves after the names of
the locations, and in the 19th-20eth centuries accepted the ethnonym Tatars.

In the 2nd half of the 11th century Mahmud Kashgarly in the encyclopedic work "Divanu
lugat it-Türk", listing the Türkic peoples, points to the Tatars
place next to Kirgizes. He writes that the Türks most close to the Byzantium are Besenyos (Badjinaks), further are located:
the Kypchaks, Oguzes, Yemeks, Bashkirts,
Basmyls, Kais, Yabaks, Tatars, Kirgizes; the Kirgizes are the most close neighbors of
China [Kashgarly Ì., 1992, vol. 1, 28]. Per this list it is clear that the Tatars were
located somewhere in the Central Asia.

All these Tatars, usually called ancient Tatars, did not become the direct ancestors
of the modern Bulgaro-Tatars, for en mass they did not migrate to the territory of
the formation of the Itil-Bulgarian state. If some insignificant number
also had filtered to that territory, in the Bulgarian state
they accepted the general ethnonym of the Bulgars. The ancient Tatars, during
the spread
of the general ethnonym Türk, gradually lost their ethnonym.

2. The
Central Asian part of the ancient Tatars achieved a prevailing position among
the Mongolo-speaking and Manchjuro-speaking peoples and transferred to the last
their ethnonym Tatars as a general name. Precisely in
a struggle against these Tatars, Timuchin - Chingiz-Khan succeeded in creating the
mighty state, and under a general name Tatars in organizing a strong army
with a system of precise subordination. This army is usually called Mongolo-Tatars.
During conquest campaigns of Chingizids in these armies
were poured the representatives of other defeated peoples: Türks, Chinese,
Persians, Arabs, Caucasians, Slavs, Finno-Ugrians, etc. These multilingual
Mongolo-Tatars settled in all Mongolian feudal empire, which included Mongolia,
the most part of Siberia, Northern China, Korea, Central and Central Asia,
Afghanistan, Iran, Southern Caucasus, Northern Caucasus, the Itil Bulgaria, a
significant part of the Rus lands. The expeditionary armies of Chingizids were
called as
Tatar's also after the disintegration of the Mongolian feudal empire, during
the existence and expansion of the independent Mongolian states of Batyi (Djuchi
Ulus), Khulagu (who also conquered Mesopotamia, Arabian Caliphate, Syria), Chagatai and Hubilai (who
conquered Southern China and other countries and called his
empire Yuan). But the Mongolo-Tatars in all Mongolian states constituted an insignificant
part of the population, and very quickly assimilated among the local Türks, Chinese,
Persians, Arabs, Caucasians, Slavs, and also the Turkic-speaking Bulgars. For a long time
Mongolo-Tatars or simply Tatars in these states were called the Chingizids who occupied
the dominant position.

The Mongolo-Tatars, though are believed by some historians to be the ancestors of
the modern
Tatars, actually have no close ethnic relation to the Bulgaro-Tatars, they
cannot be counted as the ancestors of the Bulgaro-Tatars, or of the Uzbeks, or
of the Afghans,
or of the Chinese, or of the Persians, etc.
(Prominently missing among this etc. are the Ruses, who must have had the most
admixture of the Mongolo-Tatars than all others listed - Translator's Note).

3.
The scientists of the Western Europe in the
14th century counted as Tatars, or Tartars in their lingo (comers from the Hell), the population of all
Chingizid Mongolian
states. According to this understanding of the semantics of the
ethnonym Tatars, the West-European scientists on the first European geographical
maps placed the so-called Tartaria within the territories
subordinated to Chingizids. They also started to write books about Tatars.
Seeing these maps and the first works about the Tatars, our Tataro-Tatarists expressed
a sincere surprise at the greatness of their "ancestors", alas, here
are the Tatars, our ancestors, what the vast regions of Eurasia they occupied.
In reality everybody understands that the descendants of the Tatars, i.e. the population of the
Mongolian feudal empire and all four uluses of Chingizids, are not only the Bulgaro-Tatars,
but and first of all are the Mongols,
Türks, Manchurians, Chinese, Iranians,
Arabs, Caucasians, Russians, Finno-Ugrians, etc.

4. The Russian scientists and the West-European scientists invited by them called
"Tatars" all
the population of the Dzhuchi Ulus (Kipchak Khanate, Altyn Orda, Kipchak Khanate). Later, studying the
East up to the Pacific Ocean, they carried all eastern non-Russians to these
Tatars.
Even the palaeoasiatic Oroches, who were living opposite the Sakhalin Island, the Russian researchers
called "Tatars", from that the passage was also called "Tatar". This
understanding of a situation could be accepted for a recognition of the people under
the name Kipchak Khanate Tatars. In practice, the Kipchak Khanate did not
have the necessary
conditions to form a uniform ethnos from its multilingual, multiethnic population.

5.
As the study of the eastern peoples progressed, the Russian scientists came to
realize that the Kipchak Khanate Tatars consisted of many ethnoses with their ethnonyms, but
they did not stop also using and their colloquial general name of Tatars, and started to applying
it with the
definitions consisting of self-names or dwelling place-names of these
peoples: Abakan Tatars (Khakases), Azerbaijan Tatars, Barabin Tatars, Bashkir Tatars, Bulgarian Tatars, Budjak Tatars,
Vogul
Tatars (Mansi), Djagataj Tatars, Yenisei Tatars, Southern Caucasusn
Tatars, Kazakh Tatars (Azerbaijanis), Kirgiz Tatars (Kazakhs and
Kirgizes), Kumyk Tatars, Tatari-Taranchi, Turkmen Tatars, Uzbek Tatars, Khakass Tatars, Circassian Tatars, etc. During
the colonization of the East
the participants of the scientific expeditions found out that eastern peoples consist of Finno-Ugrians, Türks,
Paleoasiats, etc. But they continued to call the Türks, and especially
the Muslim part of them, by the name Tatars, dispersing this name also to the
other Türks outside of the Kipchak Khanate territory. Later, to denote the
Türks separately from the other Tatars, the Russian scientists started to applying a composite ethnonym of the
Turko-Tatar peoples or Türko- Tatars. Only in the 1923 they
resolved to
apply a general ethnonym Türks or Turkic, and for the
Anatolian Türks they left the ethnonym Turks. (This
above paragraph refers to the exoethnonyms bestowed more by the Russian
post-revolutionary apparatchiks with screaming ignorance credentials, like the
People's Commissar for Nationalities comrade J.Stalin, than by the credentialed
scientists or the representatives of the peoples being renamed themselves -
Translator's Note).

After the disintegration of the Kipchak Khanate the same peoples that started
forming before the Mongolo-Tatar conquests went on with their independent way of development:
Bulgars, Russians, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Karachay-Balkarians, Kumyks,
Nogays, Chuvashes, etc. However, some of them experienced changes in their
ethnonyms. So, the Sarts began to be called Uzbeks,
Ases began to be called Nogays, Bulgars dealing with Russians started
to use episodically the ethnonym Tatars. Ignoring these facts, the Tatarian Tataro-Tatarists
and some Russian historians ethnically identify the modern Bulgaro-Tatars with
the so-called Kipchak Khanate Tatars, i.e. with the population of the Kipchak
Khanate, and sometimes also
with the ancient Tatars, Mongolo-Tatars, Türko-Tatars, even with Tartars.

Actually the direct ancestors of the modern Tatars of the Uralo-Itil region are not
the ancient Tatars, not the Mongolo-Tatars, not Tartars, not the Kipchak Khanate Tatars as a whole,
but the
Bulgars in a broad sense this word, a part of the population of the Kipchak
Khanate being (i.e. Kipchak Khanate Tatars), who were given a general ethnonym
Tatars only at the end of the 19th century. Therefore to differentiate our people from
the other Tatars, we
speak not just about Tatars, but necessarily about the Bulgaro-Tatars.

In addition to these five groups of Tatars and Bulgaro-Tatars there are also the Crimea
and Dobrudja Tatars.

The stated in the above paragraphs is summarized in the following
table that shows the meanings of the ethnonym Tatars.
(Note that the "20th century" statement reflects the
global passportization of the Stalinist time bearing the "nationality" notation,
with the "nationality" being determined as defined by the Russian state
apparatus that forced peoples into distorted classification pigeonholes and
disfigured the ethnic continuums - Translator's Note)

No

Tatars

Who are called Tatars

Who calls

Semantics of the ethnonym

1

All northern neighbors of Chinese: Türks, Mongols, Manchurs
Later a part of the Orhono-Yenisei Türks, Mongols Kimaks, Kirgiz neighbors .

Chinese (Ta - Ta or Da - Da)
Themselves (Self-name)

Ancient Tatars

2

Chingizid Army (conquest and retaliation), consisting of Mongols and ancient
Tatars,
then from representatives of all conquered peoples

Chingizids and all other peoples (scornfully)

Mongolo-Tatars

3

All population of the Mongolian Chingizid states.

Western Europeans, distorting the word Tatars into Tartars
(People of the Hell)

Descendants of Türkic-speaking population of pre-Mongolian Itil-Bulgarian
state and the territories under Bulgarian hegemony.

Russians, and since end of 19th century themselves

Bulgaro-Tatars

63. Ethnonym Bulgar and its meaning.

Bulgars is a Russian
pronunciation of the self-name ethnonym Bolgar. This name is accepted
to designate the Itil Bulgars. But for a more ancient period the scientists also apply the form
Bolgars, which ensconced as the name of other Bolgars:
Caucasian, N.Pontic, Danube and the more ancient Central Asian.

This work as a general name accepted to apply the word Bolgars, and
for the
designation of the Itil Bulgars applies the word Bulgars.

About the etymology of the ethnonym Bulgar/Bolgar the scientists did not yet
come to a
common opinion. And there are a lot of opinions. A Danube-Bulgarian scientist Christo Todorov-Bemberski
collected and systematized
them in his detailed article "Attempt for thematic systematization of existing etymologies of the
ethnonym Bogar(in)" [Todorov-Bemberski Ch., 1988, 175-219]. The classification suggested
by him covers the following thematic sets of etymologies:

1. Etymologies according to which
the ethnonym Bolgar(in) comes from the name
of a biblical or historical person (eponymic etymologies): the word Bolgar
ascends to the name of Yaphet's son, Noah's son; the word Bolgar comes
from the name of the Khazar's and Kumans' leader Bulgarios [Ibid. 176;
the word Bolgar
comes from the name of the Scyth's son Bolgar; the word Bolgar
becomes known from about 127 BC, and it comes from the name of their leader Blger [Ibid. 177], etc.

2. The etymologies considering the ethnonym the Bolgar(in) as a
replica from other ethnonyms: Bolgars/Bulgars semantically coincides with
the ethnonym Beshgur/Bashgur (Bashkir) "Five Ugrs", bul
is the Bulgarian "five", -gar is Ugor, Bulgars is also "Five
Ugrs "
[Todorov-Bemberski H., 178-179]

3. Etymologies according to which the ethnonym Bulgar(in) comes from a
toponym: Bolgar from the name of the river Itil/Bulga; Bolga-ar
is "Itil
People"; Bolgar comes from toponyms Bug, Budjak, Bolgarchai, Bolkardag
[Ibid. 180-186].

5. Etymologies from
the point of social characteristics of Pra-Bolgars: Bolgar "Mutineer,
Rebel" or Bolgar(in) "Person (who) achieved wealth",
Bulgar(in) "Scholar Man", Bolga-ar "Sable Hunter", for
bulga - in Mongolian is "Sable", Bulgar "City
Dweller", for in Türkic balyg is "city" [Ibid. 192-199].

6. Etymologies according to which the ethnonym Bolgar(in) reflects a
mixed origin its carrier: Bolgar is "a mix of Slavs and Turks", from
the
word bolg, bolgatmak "to mix" [Ibid. 199-203].

7. Etymologies according to which the ethnonym Bolgar(in) has a totem origin and totem contents:
bulgar is "marten, sable", "pack of
wolves" (idiomatic: "military unit") [Ibid. 203-208].

The forming system for the Turkic ethnonyms suggests that in the word
Bolgar the
final ar is the primary Turkic ethnonym with a meaning "Men, People", as its
definition is the word bolak "river" or balyg "city".
Bolgar as a whole
means "River People" or "City People". Considering that Bulgars
everywhere lived next to Suars, then the semantics of the word Bolgar as
"River People" is more convincing, for Suar has the same semantics.

As to the connection of this ethnonym with
the hydronym Itil it is possible to say
with confidence that not the word Bulgar comes from Itil, but on the
contrary, the hydronym Itil (older name Bolga)
comes from the ethnonym Bolgar: the Ruses reckoned that the word Bolgar designates the inhabitants
living by the river Bolga/Itil.

The ethnonym Bulgar/Bolgar is also multifaceted. In the Central Asia it
is mentioned long before our era, with it were called the Central Asian or
Hindukush(also spelled Hindu Kush, in Türk.
"Indian Rockies" - Translator's Note) Bulgars.

In the region of N.Pontic in the 7th century BC the Bulgars are recorded under the name of their
ancestors, Onogur/Hunogur. The settlement built
by them was called Honogur/Phanagor, in the 7th century BC the Greek colonizers transformed it into
a large city, in another1000 years under the name Phanagoria it
became a capital of the Great Bulgaria, the Kubrat's (i.e
Kurbat - Translator's Note) state. In this
state the other Türkic-speaking tribes also adopt the general ethnonym Bolgar.
Thus, the N.Pontic Bulgars are also called Bulgars. The Hindukush Bulgars and
the N.Pontic
Bulgars, naturally, are ethnically connected, but the answer
where they lived earlier, from where, when and where they moved is not found yet.

After the disintegration of the Kubrat's state, were formed three nations under this ethnonym:

1) Asparuh's Danubian Bulgaria where the state-forming
Bulgars after some generations were Slavisized, as a result there formed the Slavic-lingual Bolgarian people;

2) In the Northern Caucasus remained a part
of the Türkic-speaking Bulgars, and from its basis formed the Balkar nation;

3) In the Central Itil was created a Bulgarian state, in which all the local Türkic tribes received the general name
Bulgars/Bolgars. To differentiate these Bulgars from each other the
ethnonym Bolgar is applied with definitions: Danube Bolgars, Caucasian
Bolgars (later came another phonetic version: Balkars), Itil Bolgars (later
was adopted a phonetic version: Bulgars).

The use of the ethnonym Bulgars/Bulgars does not entail such a confusion which
is observed with the application of the ethnonym Tatars. No opponents
object to the application of the ethnonym Bulgars/Blgars with the specific
determining words. Only exist cases of non-discrimination of the Bulgars in a narrow sense
versus Bulgars in a broad sense:

a) Bulgars in narrow sense are proper Bulgars who
created the Itil-Bulgarian state;

b) Bulgars in a broad sense is the Itil-Bulgarian state populace including
the Bulgars proper and all Türkic-speaking
and Türkicized local tribes who later received the general ethnonym Bulgar.
The failure to differentiate these two meanings frequently
results in the scientists' erroneous reasoning about the ancestors of the Itil
Tatars. Accepting the ethnonym Bulgar only in a narrow sense, some historians
reason that the recognition of the Bulgars as the ancestors of the
(present day - Translator's Note) Tatars
would narrow the actual composition of the Itil Tatars, and therefore the origin
of the Tatars ostensibly would be more favorable if connected with the Mongolo-Tatars.
The supporters of such viewpoint
simply do not take into account that the ancestors of the Itil Tatars are the Bulgars in a
broad sense of that word.

64. The names Tatar and Bulgar as internal and external ethnonyms.

Studying
the ethnogenesis of the peoples, scientists try to distinguish between the endoethnonyms (internal
ethnonyms, self-name) and exoethnonyms (the athor's term is "ektoethnonyms",
i.e. external ethnonyms, names used by aliens), and also their internal and
external application.

In the historical plan the endoethnonym is a self-name of people, and an
exoethnonym is its name used by aliens. For example, the ethnonym Tatar for a part
of the ancient Tatars was, certainly, a self-name, and for their another part,
the
ancestors of the Mongols and Manchurians, it was applied as an exoethnonym, i.e. only
Chinese called them Tatars, certainly identifying them with the Turkic-speaking
Tatars. For the Mongolo-Tatars and the Kipchak Khanate Tatars the ethnonym Tatar was
a self-name only partially, for their greater part it was an exoethnonym. It means that only
the ruling clan called itself by the word Tatar, from there derives the name of the state, Tatarian. Among the Mongolo-Tatars, especially among
the Mongolo-Tatar armies, neither
Türks, nor Chinese, nor Koreans, nor Afgans, nor Persians, nor Arabs, nor
Finno-Ugrians, nor Bulgars, nor Bashkirs, nor Ruses call themselves
Tatars. For them the ethnonym Tatar was only an exoethnonym.

In fitting conditions the exoethnonym was also applied by the representatives of
that people in presenting themselves to other peoples. For example,
the representatives of the aboriginal Turkic tribes from the Uralo-Itil region, Crimea, N.Pontic
etc., who resettled to Lithuania at the end of the 14th - beginning of the 15th
centuries at the request of Vitautas, to fight against the German knights, presented themselves to
the local population as Tatars. It meant that they came from the Tatar State of the Juchi Ulus (i.e.
Kipchak Khanate), though earlier in the native land they had self-names:
Bulgars, Nogays, Taurs , Kypchaks, etc. In due course the external ethnonym
Tatars became a self-name for them, but in external application always
with the definition Lithuania (Litva Tatarlary, i.e." Lithuanian Tatars").

As to the ethnonym Tartar, i.e. the West-European name of the peoples who
fell under the Tatar states of Hubilai, Chagatai, Khulagu and Djuchi, it was never
a self-name for them, i.e. not an endoethnonym, and was applied only as exoethnonym.

When the Russians called all, the Mongolo-Tatars, and the Kipchak Khanate Tatars, and all
the eastern non-Russians, and all former Moslem Türks called, and do so now in their scientific research,
Tatars, in this case the word Tatars was and remains only an exoethnonym.
Precisely for that reason all the peoples whose ancestors lived in the territory of the
Kipchak Khanate and had an exoethnonym Tatars, subsequently refused to accept this ethnonym
as their self-name. The exceptions were only the Bulgars, the Crimean Nogays and
the Dobrudjian Türks. For these Türks the ethnonym Tatars became
a self-name and an internal ethnonym only at the end of the 19th and the
beginning of the 20th centuries.

About the story and the reasons for acceptance of the ethnonym Tatars as a self-name
for the Bulgaro-Tatars we shall discourse below, here we shall say a few words about
the acceptance of this ethnonym by the Crimean and Dobrudjian Türks.

Before receiving the ethnonym Tatar, the population of all steppe part of
the Crimea and adjoining continental areas, and also of the Kerch peninsula, was
called Crimean Nogays or simply Nogays (Nog'ay, Nog'ayly). A part of the
population of steppe Crimea called itself Kypchaks (Kyypshchak). The population of
the foothill and mountain Crimea and its Southern coast was called among the Nogays
with the ethnonym Tat (Tatlar). But during the establishment of the Crimean
Khanate in the second half of the 15th century and during the 16th century, with
a view for the restoration of the split Tatar State of the Juchi Ulus, the ethnonym
Tatars was imposed onto the population of the Crimea. "The
aboriginal Türkic population of the Crimea for a long time was rejecting the ethnic name Tatars. The poets of
the 17th century called themselves and their people Kypchaks. Even in our
days many natives of the Crimea, the senior generation, assert that they are not
the Tatars, but Kypchaks, Nogays, Crimean Türks, Krymchaks" [Izidinova S.R., 1997, 299]. Now for
the Crimean Tatars the ethnonym Tatars is a self-name, i.e. an internal ethnonym.

The Balkan
Türks living in the Dobrudjian N. Pontic, which now is in the territory
of Romania and Bulgaria, started transforming the former exoethnonym Tatars into an endoethnonym, for among these Türks the majority
are the immigrants
mostly from the Crimea (middle of the 19th century). As in the Crimea, there are three dialects
too: Tat (Crimean-Tatarian of the southern coast), Tatar (Middle, or Central Crimean-Tatarian) and Nogay (northern, or steppe
Crimean-Tatarian). These dialects now are under a strong influence from the neighboring
Turkish dialects [Pokrovskaya L.A., 1997, 197]. As there is
going the process of Turkization, accordingly there is no dispute about the ethnonym
Tatars.

The ethnonym Bulgar/Bolg'ar not always was applied as a
self-name only. It was a self-name for proper Bulgars, who succeeded in creation
of a number of states. But for the other peoples in the population of these states, this
ethnonym initially was applied as an exoethnonym, and only in a due course
it was becoming a self-name. For example, for the Slavs subordinated to the Danube
Bulgars, the ethnonym Bolgars gradually became a self-name. For the Bashkirs in
the Itil-Bulgarian state, the ethnonym Bulgars served as an
exoethnonym. But the expansion of the Mongolo-Tatars saved them from the
adoption of
the ethnonym Bulgar as a self-name.

The ethnonym Bulgars as an exoethnonym reached
the Western Siberian
Türks,
but they did not have time to take it as their self-name, just exactly as
the ethnonym Tatars they do not accept an their own endoethnonym till now. The name
Bulgars also did not have time to stick for the ancestors of the Astrakhan Tatars. It was
the self-name for the ancestors of the Tatars of the Central Itil region and Ural, i.e.
for
those of our ancestors who for a long time lived in the
Itil-Bulgarian state.

Now there is a whole social movement with many local branches which aims for
the restoration of the former Bulgar self-name, so that having been
called
Tatars, they were not confused with the other Tatars.

In connection with above-stated a few words should be stated now about the internal and external
application of the ethnonyms Tatars and Bulgars.

So, between themselves, the Crimean, and Dobrudjian, and Itil Tatars call their
people with the word Tatars, for in its internal application it is clear
for all what Tatars are told about. For the external and initial application (i.e.
not among these Tatars), saying only Tatars without its definition makes
the
semantics completely unclear to the interlocutor or a reader, and therefore
the word Tatars must be necessarily applied with a determinator word, as for example, the
Crimean Tatars, Dobrudja
Tatars, Itil Tatars, Siberian Tatars, Bulgaro-Tatars, etc.

When we speak about different Tatars in an historical plan, we also use the ethnonym
Tatars certainly with its respective definition: ancient Tatars,
Mongolo-Tatars, Kipchak Khanate Tatars, Chagatai Tatars, Bulgaro-Tatars, etc.

65. Ethnonym
Bulgaro-Tatars and its semantics.

We saw that the ethnonym Tatar in diachronic and synchronic plans
refer to different peoples, at times not connected ethnically with each other. Therefore
the initial and external application of the ethnonym Tatars without definitions
results in misunderstandings and serious confusion in the studies of the ethnogenesis
for the
so-called Tatar peoples.

Because of this circumstance, during initial and external application
the ethnonym Tatar necessarily is used with proper definitions.

To designate the modern Tatars, three composite ethnonyms are used:
Crimean Tatars, Dobrudja Tatars and Bulgaro-Tatars.

The
Crimean and Dobrudja Tatars are named by the place of their location. And
the Bulgaro-Tatars are called the Tatars whose origin is connected to the Bulgars. Some
scientists instead of the name Bulgaro-Tatars tried to recommend other
ethnonyms, reflecting the regions of their settlement: Kazan Tatars, Tatars of the
Itil and Ural region, Itil Tatars etc. But none of them is capable to capture all
Bulgaro-Tatars, leaving on the side the Western Siberian Tatars,
Lithuanian Tatars, etc. Considering all this, still in the 19th century the scientists
found a rather fortunate ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars. And the idea to
apply this composite ethnonym was inspired still in the 17th century by a German scientist Adam Oleary.
Visiting the Itil region,
he called the local Turkic people not simply Tatars, but the Bulgarian Tatars, i.e.
Bulgaro-Tatars [Oleary À., 1905, 408]. The application of this ethnonym
became more active after publication in the 1877 of the S.M.Shpilevsky's book "Ancient cities and other Bulgaro-Tatar monuments in the Kazan province".

The application of the ethnonyms Crimean Tatars, Dobrudja Tatars do not
cause any special discussions. Around the composite ethnonym
Bulgaro-Tatars the disputes arise constantly. Some say that it's enough to apply the
ethnonym
Tatar without definitions, that ostensibly it would give an image of a uniform
great Tatar people. This childish approach is advocated by several not
too young historians. Naturally, the existence of three different peoples called
Tatars is a recognized fact [Rorlih À., 1993, 157-165]. Therefore to know
what Tatars there are talked about, we have to apply the ethnonym
Tatar with definitions.

Some people are mindful that if our people were called by the ethnonym
Bulgaro-Tatars, then in due course it would result that the part Tatars would
disappear, the former ethnonym Bulgars would settle as the name of people,
and then, hence, we
shall lose the ethnonym Tatars, which is also important to express the
former greatness of our people. The supporters of this apprehension should be
told that the
Crimean Tatars, as a result of application of this composite ethnonym,
have not lost the word Tatars, and did not restore their own former ethnonyms
Krymchak
or Nogay.

If there was a danger of loosing the word Tatar from
the composite
ethnonym
Bulgaro-Tatars, we woulf have lost it long ago, for the ethnonym
Bulgaro-Tatars is anyway applied from the 17th century. Thus, there
are no basis to be alarmed with application
of the specific ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars.

Bulgaro-Tatars is the name for the Astrakhan, Kazan, Kasimov, Nizhny Novgorod, Siberian, Lithuanian, and Orenburg Tatars, for all of them are the descendants
of the native Türkic tribes, which, being in the Bulgarian state, or being
subjected to its hegemony, were called by a general ethnonym Bulgars. Only at
the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century they started applying
the ethnonym Tatars. Therefore it is possible to call the Bulgaro-Tatars
as Tatars only
from the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, before
that they were
Bulgars, and for the whole period they are Bulgaro-Tatars.

Such sequence in the development
of the Bulgaro-Tatars was brilliantly proved by S.Mardjani. Following his doctrine, all
leading Tatar historians and politicians, G.Ahmerov, Riza Fahreddinov, Dj. Validi, G.Sagdi, G.Gubaydullin,
Ü.Akchura, S.Maksudi, G.Ishaki, M.Hudyakov, H.Atlasi, H.Gimadi, G.Üsupov,
M.Safargaliev, T.Davletshin, J.Abdullin, A.Halikov, A.Karimullin, R.Nafigov,
I.Tagirov, S.Alishev and many others freely use the ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars.

Even though in the 17-20es of the 20th century was also used the ethnonym Türko-Tatars, but
the former
Russian scientists named with this term all the Türks, and now in its semantics
are included not only the Bulgaro-Tatars, but also the Crimean, and
the Dobrudja Tatars. For that reason the ethnonym Türko-Tatars to
designate the Bulgaro-Tatars is not used now.

The ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars
separates the modern Tatars from the ancient Tatars, Mongolo-Tatars, Tartars,
and Kipchak Khanate Tatars. The Mongolo-Tatars, with a help of a strong army
organized from the representatives of local conquered peoples, created four
empires: Chagatai Ulus, Djuchi Ulus, Hubilai Ulus, and Khulagu (Ilhanids)
Ulus, whose population the Europeans and Persians called Tartars.

Only an insignificant part the Mongolo-Tatars settled in the territory of the
Djuchi Ulus, and they very quickly assimilated among the local Türks, including among
the Bulgars, accepting the ethnonym Bulgar. But as the state was called Tataria,
its population was
also called Tatars by the other peoples, which also impacted the part of the population
that later accepted the ethnonym Tatar.

It should be also noted that
in the semantics of the ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars we also include our
pre-Bulgarian ancestors who were carrying the ethnonyms: Suvar, Biar
(Bilyar/Biger), Kashan (Kasan), As, Kasar (Khazar), Alan, Akatsir, Majgar, Pardy, Kangar, etc.

Thus, the ethnonym Bulgaro-Tatars unites in one nation the modern Itil-Ural,
Western-Sibrian and Lithuanian Tatars, and discriminates these Tatars from
the ancient Tatars, Mongolo-Tatars, Kipchak Khanate Tatars, Tartars, Crimean and
Dobrudja Tatars.

66. Composition of the Bulgaro-Tatars and their quantity.

The Bulgaro-Tatars are classed
by the modern and historical regions of settlement, by the language distinctions,
by the
confessional affiliation, by their aboriginality and
non-aboriginality, etc. It would be enough to study the scheme illustrated here
with attention to clearly discern this classification.

The
Itil Tatars in another way are also called as Ural-Itil Tatars, sometimes Tatars of the Itil region and Ural.
There live the carriers of the main
(Central and Western) dialects of the Tatar language.

Siberian (more often: Western Siberian) Tatars also belong to the Bulgaro-Tatars
in the historical aspect: together with the Bashkirs prior to the Mongolo-Tatar
conquests they were under economic, political and cultural influence of the Bulgars. Apparently,
this historical fact also mattered in the consolidation of the Siberian Tatars with
the Itil Tatars.
The Siberian Tatars are the carriers of the third, Eastern dialect of the Tatar
language. By the language attributes the dialectologists divide the Western
Siberian Tatars into Tobol-Irtysh,
Barabin and Tomsk Tatars.

After the dismemberment of the Lithuania, the
Lithuanian Tatars found themselves in the territories of
Poland, Belarus, and Baltic principalities, therefore they sometimes are called Polish,
Byelorussian and Baltic Tatars. Having lost their Bulgarian language, and their own
ethnonym Bulgar, they retained the external ethnonym Tatars and
the Islamic
religion.

In respect to the historical regions the Bulgaro-Tatars are usually divided into:

1)
Kasimov and
Nizhny Novgorod,

2) Tambov and Penza,

3) Perm,

4) Kazan,

5) Basin of river White
(Bashkir),

6) Astrakhan,

7) Orenburg.

By the confessional affiliation
the Bulgaro-Tatars are Moslem Tatars and
Christianized Tatars (Greek Orthodox denomination called Kryashens).

By the modern location Tatars separate to aboriginal and non-aboriginal (diaspora).

The aboriginal Tatars are the Tatars of Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Saratov,
Samara, Nizhny Novgorod, Vyatka area, Chuvashstan, Penza, Ryazan,
Western Siberia and others who now live in their historical regions.

The
Tatar diaspora are the Tatars of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,
Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Ukraine (Shahtinian), Moscow, St.-Petersburg,
Chelyabinsk, and also the Tatars of the far abroad (the
"far abroad" is a very colloquial term that could only arise in the
Stalinist-type country where people are contained behind an iron curtain, and
have an ingrained mindset of our sphere and their sphere - Translator's Note): American,
Turkish, Finnish,
Australian, etc.

As to population of the Bulgaro-Tatars, no common
opinion exist despite the results of the censuses. Some scientists, challenging the
counts of the official
censuses, assert that the total number of the Bulgaro-Tatars
is not 6 million 645 thousand (the results of 1989 census), but much more than
that. But because we do not have other information, we use the results of the
censuses done in 1979 and in 1989, and would try
to find a growth trend.

In the 1979 Tatars totaled 6 million 185 thousand, in the 1989 the total came to 6 million 645 thousand.
In 10 years the gain was 7,4 percent, while across
the USSR an increase in population was 9 percent. In growth rates the
Bulgaro-Tatars lag behind the increase in the population of the USSR by 1,6
percent.

The share of the Tatars in the population of Tatarstan in the 1979
was 47,8 %, in the 1989 it was 48,5 %, the share of the Russians was in the 1979 44,1 %, and in
the 1989 it was 43,3 %. Unofficially stated data for the 2000 was that the share
of the Tatars reached 51 % of the population of Tatarstan.

By the results of the 1979 census, 14,9 % of all Tatars lived in Bashkortostan, 10,3
% lived in Uzbekistan. In 10 years is observed a sharp growth of the Tatars in
the Bashkortostan, and the reduction of their numbers in the Uzbekistan: the census results for 1989 17
% of all Tatars live in Bashkortostan, and live in 7 % in Uzbekistan. Such sharp changes, apparently,
also occurred because in Bashkortostan some part the Tatars who were listed earlier as Bashkirs took an
advantage of the benefits of democratization and chose the Tatar ethnonym; as to Uzbekistan,
the democratization benefited the indigenous population: some part of the Tatars, trying to avoid a negative image of
the word Tatars in the (state run - Translator's Note)
media, in the census called themselves Uzbeks. Such ethno-political flutters are usual in all multinational countries
(this last comment is also an indicator of a specific ingrained mindset that
could only arise in the Stalinist-type country, where minorities are demonized,
discriminated against, and subjected to cultural and even physical genocide,
as a step in the process of "solidification" of the country by ignorant
dictators. The propaganda wants you to think that fascism is a norm for all
countries - Translator's Note).

What is the status with alienation
of the Tatars from the native language?
In the 1979 85,9 % of all Tatars considered the Tatar language as their native language, in
the 1989 this factor decreased to 83,2 percent. In 10 years the share
of the Bulgaro-Tatars alienated from their native language has reached 1
million 116 thousand (in 1979 it was 872 thousand). Thus, the total gain in the
number of the Tatars for 10 years was 7,4 %, while the increase in the number of
the people weaned from their own native language was almost 28 %.

Hence, the process of assimilation of the Tatar people among the Russians, Uzbeks, Kazakhs,
etc. goes at a faster pace than its total growth. From the modern newspapers it is known that the number
of the Russians in Russia falls, and together with them fall the total Tatar population.

Thus, the quest arose for taking urgent effective measures to revive
and develop our people. By now in a general plan these measures have taken shape. Among them are:

- Preservation and fortification of the national statehood of the Tatarstan Republic;

- Creation of a united
ethno-cultural autonomy of the Tatars who are dispersed in many regions;

- Preservation and improvement of the social and economic environment for all
Tatars that would provide proper reproduction of the Tatar population;

- Preservation and improvement of the environment for the people in the
spheres: a) natural, b) cultural, c) confessional, d)
language, d) pedagogical and educational;

- Resolution of the nations' rights defense problems at the level of ensuring
the human rights;

- Resolution of the problems of revival and development of the nation, not
at the expense of the others (in the spirit of friendship of peoples);

- Preservation and development of rural settlements and working and living
standards of rural population.

The successful resolution for the problems of revival and development of the nations in
many respects depends on a correct, adequate reconstruction of the national
history of the people. As it's known, the (here:
Russian - Translator's Note) historians studying the national history of
their people, for a fuller picture, are also interested in the marginal problems, and quite often
they try to show the other ethnoses as newcomers,
strangers, even former conquerors of the territory. Therefore our
(here: Tatar, and generally Türkic "minority" -
Translator's Note) historians in the
reconstruction of their national history have to also perform a delicate work
for elimination of the mistakes unintentionally made by the historians
of the neighboring peoples. (Is not this a sweet
language to use talking under a stare of, and about the neighboring big gorilla
with quite a service record? - Translator's Note)